What Is The Best Hypothesis

[Burnt State]

The answers all come from the Biological bias

Transbiological hypothesis works for me

As I was listening to the recent Roundtable episode I started thinking more about Vallee's "thermostat" control system theory - they didn't mention it so my brain did it for me. The notion that the planet was its own computer system/consciousness gave me a Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy inspired Magrathea Hypothesis: the planet, interacting with our neurological processes create these experiences to highlight our dangerous anti-environmental activities that interferes with the earth's biological prccesses, or even more simply, just throws out these 'events' b/c our brains ask for it.

Consequently the earth's autopilot system produces different odd sightings based on our own mental, cultural expectations of mythic experience, like someone left the holodeck on and it's still interacting with our human species, so it can't help producing giant mother ship ufo's and goat-footed men running across the highway. Probably where Nessie, ghosts and Bigfoot come from. We ask for it and the earth provides the entertainment.

Hmmmm...wait a second, this is starting to sound much more like a Star Trek OS episode.

 

[Burnt State]

Are you suggesting an Earth based simulation for carrier reports? Please elaborate. I'm not clear on what you are getting at.
...Coincidentally ( or otherwise ), The JAL 1628 case included the sighting of smaller craft in conjunction with a carrier sized craft.[/FONT]

BTW I have really enjoyed reading through the threads on here, especially trainedobserver's breakdown and subsequent explanations along with xylo's and Michael Allen's contributions to this discussion. This saved me a lot of thought time.

As trainedobserver identified previously, how do we know that something like the JAL sighting wasn't just a constructed event, something not really tangible at all but just a manifestation interacting wth our technology and our senses? What's the point of a mothership if you're just going to cruise it around in lower atmosphere - seems like overkill to me. Isn't it supposed to be hiding on the the side of the moon out of sight?

A lot of sightings only appear to be tangible and seem to be something much more inexplicable than what the ETH offers

 

[Randall]

No, you are just treating only one aspect of his discussion, the disappearance part, and missing out on the rest of those physical considerations, for which I gave you quite a list. Also, keep in mind that Vallée is not arguing for any other theory, just proposing five arguments against the ETH, by examining some very specific, collected aspects of the phenomenon.

That's true, but at the same time, when defining the problem, sudden appearance/disappearance was listed as "Problem 1" ( reposted below ) under the general heading which establishes the purpose. We can apply the same process to problems 2, 3, 4 etc. and I've moved the discussion here to do that. I invite you to select Problem 2.

Repost: Problem 1 - Sudden Appearance/Disappearance of UFOs

• Establish Purpose: The purpose is to determine the most likely theory for the observed behavior of objects known as UFOs:
• Define The Problem: Problem 1 - The sudden appearance or disappearance of UFOs from the observer's field of view.
• Evidence or Information: From multiple UFO reports.
• Infer that: UFOs are able to somehow appear or disappear from the observer's field of view.
• The theories that might explain this behavior are:

1. An illusion caused by the rapid movement of an object directly toward or away from an observer
2. An illusion caused by the rapid movement of an object from behind something that had previously been blocking the observers view of it.
3. Camouflage that makes it difficult for an observer to visually detect the object.
4. Popping in and out of an alternate dimension or universe.

• We can assume that all options above could hypothetically account for the observed behavior.
• Given what we know, we can safely assume that options 1 through 3 above are all well established concepts with real-world examples that support them, at least to some extent.
• Given what we know, option 4 is highly speculative and that little or no substantial real-world evidence exists to support it.
• The implications of the above are that although option 4 might be possible, the consequences of making it preferential requires a leap of faith in an unproven and more complex theory that requires a host of additional assumptions beyond what is already known that are also entirely hypothetical, and therefore heuristics such as Ockham's razor would suggest it is the least likely of the available theories to be true.
• The point of view this leads to is that options 1 through 3 are all more likely to be the case than option 4.

Now we can repeat and refine, but IMO it is already clear how that will go. There are all kinds of examples one can dig up where movement that is rapid accompanied by a momentary distraction can make things seem to vanish or appear. Magicians have been doing it for centuries. Couple that with examples of camouflage, many proven in nature, plus the development of standard and active camouflage, and those theories are as proven possible as you can get, unlike alternate universes, and especially alternate dimensions. But even if we accept that such exists, there's still the added problem of "extra accounting for" required. So I'm sorry to say, but without something better, this aspect of UFO behavior barely lends any weight to the idea that an alternative universe exists, let alone that aliens are coming here from there.

Now all that being said. I believe I've already mentioned someplace that an alternate universe ( not dimension ), is my favorite theory, even if I don't think it's the most likely.

 

[Waller]

I don't need no stinkin' hypothesis. I ask those who pilot the shops themselves.

Zany, huh?

 

[Burnt State]

I don't need no stinkin' hypothesis. I ask those who pilot the shops themselves.

Zany, huh?

let me know what there is to buy in those shops as I'd like one of those, "I visited Earth and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirts.

 

[Burnt State]

That's true, but at the same time, when defining the problem, sudden appearance/disappearance was listed as "Problem 1" ( reposted below ) under the general heading which establishes the purpose. We can apply the same process to problems 2, 3, 4 etc. and I've moved the discussion here to do that.

No, that is not what is listed as problem one in his document. I tried to flesh it out for you more specifically and will engage it on that level as per all of my post and all of Vallee's physical considerations.

 

[Randall]

No, that is not what is listed as problem one in his document. I tried to flesh it out for you more specifically and will engage it on that level as per all of my post and all of Vallee's physical considerations.

Though the example I used is not listed specifically as "Problem 1" in the specific document you mentioned, it is listed in Vallée's book as part of the reasoning and was looked at here as simply a problem in the generic sense, rather than as a 1:1 correlate to Vallée. In other words, in Vallée's view, the sudden appearance/disappearance of UFOs presents a problem in terms of explaining them in terms of the ETH. So it is a valid problem.

Vallée also describes other problems. If we work through them there's no reason we couldn't correlate them with Vallée's paper and book, so that in the end we could have a side-by-side, more in-depth look at the reasoning, and from there we can determine for ourselves if the IH still deserves more or less or equal weight than other theories.

I invited you to be the one to choose the next problem because I wanted it to be something you find it interesting to explore. If you're more interested in holding onto your beliefs than taking a closer look at the situation, that's OK too. People do that all the time. Eventually I'll get around to working this over myself, or maybe someone else in the forum who is interested will offer-up something, and who knows, maybe I'll find out that it's me whose mind is changed . Unlike most people, I always look forward to that possibility ( because it's so rare when it happens LOL ).

 

[Burnt State]

Though the example I used is not listed specifically as "Problem 1" in the specific document you mentioned, it is listed in Vallée's book as part of the reasoning and was looked at here as simply a problem in the generic sense, rather than as a 1:1 correlate to Vallée. In other words, in Vallée's view, the sudden appearance/disappearance of UFOs presents a problem in terms of explaining them in terms of the ETH. So it is a valid problem.

Vallée also describes other problems. If we work through them there's no reason we couldn't correlate them with Vallée's paper and book, so that in the end we could have a side-by-side, more in-depth look at the reasoning, and from there we can determine for ourselves if the IH still deserves more or less or equal weight than other theories.

I invited you to be the one to choose the next problem because I wanted it to be something you find it interesting to explore. If you're more interested in holding onto your beliefs than taking a closer look at the situation, that's OK too. People do that all the time. Eventually I'll get around to working this over myself, or maybe someone else in the forum who is interested will offer-up something, and who knows, maybe I'll find out that it's me whose mind is changed . Unlike most people, I always look forward to that possibility ( because it's so rare when it happens LOL ).

I'm definitely open to having my mind changed; I just feel that problem 1 is a little under developed as you've outlined it. I understand that his thinking evolved on this and that further arguments were developed subsequently. I like the paper as I can see some extrapolations from it. Which book are we in and does it pre-date his paper for JSE?

I see the physical considerations elaborated upon in a larger manner and don't feel those core points I brought up in my post on the other thread have been dealt with at all. We can move on from there to address other issues, but I see this one as entirely unresolved, especially as you use it to critique the IDH. I don't think that's Vallée's main point so much as trying to identify the ETH has limits, is underdeveloped and does not answer to all of what we know as the Ufological phenomenon. I say this not to defend the IDH as I don't see that as the big answer either. In fact, I see that as inadequate as well, quite frankly. What's important for me in this discussion is that the ETH is weak and that we have yet to find an adequate theory.

If there's a belief system I subscribe to, in thinking about that family of believers you were talking about on our Turn the Tables roundtable show of Sept 2015, is I don't see myself as a true blue believer as Chris says, but I do believe another intelligence is attempting to manipulate us to believe in an ETH scenario while it simultaneously continues to defy it. I find the whole UFO situation to be absurdist & surreal at best. But we can proceed to debate the arguments against the ETH if you wish.

 

[Randall]

I'm definitely open to having my mind changed; I just feel that problem 1 is a little under developed as you've outlined it. I understand that his thinking evolved on this and that further arguments were developed subsequently. I like the paper as I can see some extrapolations from it. Which book are we in and does it pre-date his paper for JSE?

I see the physical considerations elaborated upon in a larger manner and don't feel those core points I brought up in my post on the other thread have been dealt with at all. We can move on from there to address other issues, but I see this one as entirely unresolved, especially as you use it to critique the IDH. I don't think that's Vallée's main point so much as trying to identify the ETH has limits, is underdeveloped and does not answer to all of what we know as the Ufological phenomenon. I say this not to defend the IDH as I don't see that as the big answer either. In fact, I see that as inadequate as well, quite frankly. What's important for me in this discussion is that the ETH is weak and that we have yet to find an adequate theory.

If there's a belief system I subscribe to, in thinking about that family of believers you were talking about on our Turn the Tables roundtable show of Sept 2015, is I don't see myself as a true blue believer as Chris says, but I do believe another intelligence is attempting to manipulate us to believe in an ETH scenario while it simultaneously continues to defy it. I find the whole UFO situation to be absurdist & surreal at best. But we can proceed to debate the arguments against the ETH if you wish.

I have no problem reviewing Problem 1 above and adapting it as the logic and/or evidence warrants. Just cut/copy/paste whatever works for you and we can analyze, revise and reassess as we go. I believe there other issues under the same general heading like a case where the UFO gradually dissolved. That would eliminate rapid movement, but not active camouflage. Feel free to add whatever you think is relevant. I've got the paper, and the book referenced earlier was Dimensions ( no coincidence I suggest ). Other sources are fine, as well as revisions, but any such revisions should include citations.

There's also the issue of context here that we should clear up right away. It's one thing to say that the ETH isn't an adequate explanation for the UFO phenomenon if we are to consider the phenomenon itself as synonymous with the field of ufology. In the context of the field as a whole, we have all these peripheral issues like faeries, religious visions, and so on. Then there is the core of the phenomenon which are UFOs, and as discussed in previous posts, there is overwhelming evidence in terms of usage ( not as proof of the definition ) that the meaning is synonymous with "alien craft", and that such craft, although alien to the boundaries and constructs of our human civilization, may or may not be ET in origin. In other words we're not dealing with a whole bunch of loosely related or unrelated phenomena, as that would then expand what we mean by the question "Where do UFOs come from " beyond any reasonable limits. If there are any issues there we need to clear up first, this would probably be a good time to get them cleared up.

 

[Burnt State]

Defining the core of the phenomenon may be difficult. I do believe there are many answers to what the phenomenon is as a whole that would include experience anomalies that are possibly taking place internally only with no active external agent whatsoever. How physical or immaterial, or inbetween states the phenomenon might be is difficult to ascertain when we include proofs that are comprised of witness testimony only. What would you call the core phenomenon? Are you using Jerome Clark language here, referring to event anomalies that have proofs coming from various sources including radar, trace evidence & multiple witnesses?

I agree about terminology and what it is synonymous with including that its origins may not be ET, but that it is alien to us, an unknown quantity: X=? I'm not sure we'll be able to define beyond any reasonable limits where they come from, but perhaps narrowing down the possibilities or at least being able to say things like, "It is very similar to..." or that it has these certain characteristics. If intentions could be identified, or at least provide some small window into the idea of a non-human sentience at work that would be wonderful. Still for me the term UFO means absurdism, confusion, tricksterism and manipulation.

Dimensions precedes the article by two years. I'd rather go with the evolved thinking to avoid limiting the discussion. Will repost later...

 

[Randall]

Defining the core of the phenomenon may be difficult. I do believe there are many answers to what the phenomenon is as a whole that would include experience anomalies that are possibly taking place internally only with no active external agent whatsoever. How physical or immaterial, or inbetween states the phenomenon might be is difficult to ascertain when we include proofs that are comprised of witness testimony only. What would you call the core phenomenon? Are you using Jerome Clark language here, referring to event anomalies that have proofs coming from various sources including radar, trace evidence & multiple witnesses?

You can select the links in my signature line for the term UFO, but you need to be on a full featured PC or laptop rather than a phone or small android screen because the site uses frames and JavaScript. It's too much to post the whole thing here because it goes deep into the word origin and usage with formatting that won't work here.

I agree about terminology and what it is synonymous with including that its origins may not be ET, but that it is alien to us, an unknown quantity: X=? I'm not sure we'll be able to define beyond any reasonable limits where they come from, but perhaps narrowing down the possibilities or at least being able to say things like, "It is very similar to..." or that it has these certain characteristics. If intentions could be identified, or at least provide some small window into the idea of a non-human sentience at work that would be wonderful.

Fantastic. We should be able to make some progress then. I completely agree we're probably not going to be able to say with certainty where UFOs come from; but we can determine one place they're not from, namely from within the boundaries and constructs of known human civilization. And we should be able to determine which theory or theories are the most reasonable and put them in a hierarchy of probability based on critical analysis.

Still for me the term UFO means absurdism, confusion, tricksterism and manipulation.

If "absurdism, confusion, tricksterism and manipulation" can be shown to be relevant to the issue at hand, by all means explain how. Otherwise that might be a good subject for another equally interesting discussion .

Dimensions precedes the article by two years. I'd rather go with the evolved thinking to avoid limiting the discussion. Will repost later...

In principle, there's no reason to exclude any of Vallée's reasons unless he has retracted them, but even then they might still be interesting to have a look at in order to get a better understanding of how he thinks. In the meantime, since it's up to you to select the next problem, choose whatever source you like, and we'll both have a closer look at it. We don't have to limit this to Vallée. Any line of reasoning is fine with me. Vallée is just the obvious starting point.

 

[Badseed]

I did a title specific search and found no other thread with "hypothesis" in the title, and none dealing exclusively with the issue of what hypothesis best explains the UFO phenomenon. So I propose that we explore it here.

To kick this off. We are all aware of the ETH ( Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ), but there are others who believe that the ETH isn't the best one. I persoanlly still believe it is the best explanation within the following context:

Extraterrestrial:

A term referring to a location or origin other than the planet Earth, but still within our current universe or spacetime.

ETH:

In ufology, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ( ETH ) theorizes that UFOs come from outer space and probably originate on another planet. However most UFOs are more accurately explained as shuttles that have been dispatched from a mother ship near the Earth or some secret terrestrial base. Therefore, technically, some UFOs may be terrestrial based, but because they are ultimately of alien origin, the ETH still applies to them.

I am particularly interested in point-counterpoint ( reasonably short ) exchanges that provide logical and cohesive reasoning for hypotheses that people believe provide a better explanation than the ETH. I look forward to your responses.

My 2 cent.

The UFO phenomenon does not act like ET from another planet.

They have been around for a long time. Their story changes depending on the culture they are interacting with. At times they claim to be Gods, Angels, Demons even pilots of dirigible aircraft at times. They tell people that they come from the Moon, then they tell others they come from Mars, then Orion's belt etc..... Their stated motivation also changes, first benevolent gods, then mine minerals was the story, then they where friendly explorers, then save humanity was the story for a while, then save the earth, it goes on and on.

Why abduct people - What kind of research takes at least 100+ years for a civilization that has mastered space and time? Further, what advanced civilization would need to conduct such sadistic experiments? Could they not stop by a medical waste dump or a hospital and get all the biological material they need? and why would it take a thousand years to learn whatever it is they want to learn anyway? If they are benevolent, would they steal people out of their homes in the night and subject them to terrifying experiments? Would you do that?

More interesting perhaps; does it take thousands of UFO's to conduct this research or whatever it is? there have been millions of sightings. Even considering that people are seeing the same crafts over and over again - there must be thousands, or at the very least several hundred of them conducting operations for thousands of years. Does that sound like a visitor from another planet? We send one probe to Mars and we know the atmosphere, the composition of the soil, and million other things - the ET's that crossed the galaxy need thousands of craft for thousands of years? really.

All the credible stories of UFO's being come upon by passersby (in ridiculous places to land mostly, like on the side of a highway), who discover ET's fixing a broke down space craft? not 1 or 2 but dozens of cases from the late 1800 to mid 1900; Add to that all the UFO crashes - apparently they crossed the galaxy in "space lemons".

Sometimes there is a material element to UFO abductions and sometimes there is none. One credible abduction leaves scorch marks on the ground where the UFO landed. But an equally credible abduction takes place from a high rise building where thousands should have seen the UFO, but no one sees it except the abductees. They appear and disappear, defy the laws of physics as we know it, yet sometimes they can still crash?

I'll spare you the rest, but you get my point.

ET - I don't think so. But that's their story (for now) and they are sticking to it.

 

[Randall]

My 2 cent. The UFO phenomenon does not act like ET from another planet.

Hi Bad . Thanks for your comments. Let's review them in point form.

They have been around for a long time. Their story changes depending on the culture they are interacting with. At times they claim to be Gods, Angels, Demons even pilots of dirigible aircraft at times. They tell people that they come from the Moon, then they tell others they come from Mars, then Orion's belt etc..... Their stated motivation also changes, first benevolent gods, then mine minerals was the story, then they where friendly explorers, then save humanity was the story for a while, then save the earth, it goes on and on.

We're assuming aliens have been around for a long time because of mythology that bears a close resemblance to modern UFO sightings. However maybe its just mythology and the only real alien craft to have visted Earth started appearing in the 1940s. Or, because of the resemblance, one can also argue that maybe UFOs haven't changed so much as our interpretations of what they might be. Like modern primitive cultures created a cargo cult religion based on airplanes, our primitive cultural counterparts projected their superstitions and religious beliefs onto their experiences. Ezekiel's Wheel is still essentially a flying saucer, and the stories that get told about ancient sightings, assuming they're even true in the first place, have no doubt been passed down and embellished with the biases of the storytellers.

So for this first part, all the incongruences can be explained by cultural memes of the period being imparted onto the craft, but even then, that tends to leave us with some rather interesting unambiguous consistencies, mainly that many such sightings involve objects in the sky and that primitive gods associated with them were also believed to have come from the sky. So let's move on:

Why abduct people - What kind of research takes at least 100+ years for a civilization that has mastered space and time? Further, what advanced civilization would need to conduct such sadistic experiments? Could they not stop by a medical waste dump or a hospital and get all the biological material they need? and why would it take a thousand years to learn whatever it is they want to learn anyway? If they are benevolent, would they steal people out of their homes in the night and subject them to terrifying experiments? Would you do that?

Some of the same issues above apply, but let's address the question: "Would you do that?". Humans have been abducting wildlife and doing all kinds of terrifying experiments on them for a long time. If we're nothing more to the aliens than just another species, then I can see how we might be of significant interest to them compared to something like - for example - a toad. And as for getting all the data they need and being done with it, it's not uncommon for us to tag wild animals and recapture them at some future time, or do long term studies on various species. Everything changes over time and long term studies supply valuable data on living systems.

More interesting perhaps; does it take thousands of UFO's to conduct this research or whatever it is? there have been millions of sightings. Even considering that people are seeing the same crafts over and over again - there must be thousands, or at the very least several hundred of them conducting operations for thousands of years. Does that sound like a visitor from another planet? We send one probe to Mars and we know the atmosphere, the composition of the soil, and million other things - the ET's that crossed the galaxy need thousands of craft for thousands of years? really.

Again, some of the reasoning above applies, and in other recent posts I dealt with the issue of mass abductions and mass sightings. See this link: Ridiculous theories that the author know's is bogus but perpetuates

All the credible stories of UFO's being come upon by passersby (in ridiculous places to land mostly, like on the side of a highway), who discover ET's fixing a broke down space craft? not 1 or 2 but dozens of cases from the late 1800 to mid 1900; Add to that all the UFO crashes - apparently they crossed the galaxy in "space lemons".

I realize your fairly new so you probably haven't seen the posts where I've dealt with those issues, and unfortunately I've done so many posts I'm not sure where they are either, so to condense: Basically, I don't think that we can say with certainty that every crash claim is legitimate ( if any ). But if one or two are legitimate, then what we're seeing isn't mother ship wreckage, but something much smaller like a probe or shuttle. Which means that after what might be centuries of interstellar travel to get here, these small craft have been sitting idle during that time, and may have age related technical issues and a lack of experienced pilots. So it's not hard to imagine that if one gets hit by a billion volt lighting strike that fries its nav system while flying around a completely alien world, that the crew could run into serious problems.

Sometimes there is a material element to UFO abductions and sometimes there is none. One credible abduction leaves scorch marks on the ground where the UFO landed. But an equally credible abduction takes place from a high rise building where thousands should have seen the UFO, but no one sees it except the abductees. They appear and disappear, defy the laws of physics as we know it, yet sometimes they can still crash?

Again, I don't think we can safely assume that every abduction claim is an accurate interpretation of the experience ( assuming there even was such an experience ), and if you go back and check that link to my previous comments, you'll find a link there to the issue of mass abductions.

I'll spare you the rest, but you get my point. ET - I don't think so. But that's their story (for now) and they are sticking to it.

Sure. Like I said I've considered all these issues before, and if you reflect on them similarly for a while, I think that eventually you'll also come to agree that sufficient technology can explain a lot, and with a little critical thinking, the rest can be written off as cultural memes, mythology, hoaxes, misinterpretations, and other noise, leaving the ETH at the top of the list. In the meantime if you have a better theory, by all means don't be afraid to share .

 

[Burnt State]

The first theory that comes to mind to compete with the ETH is something is going out of its way, in a highly absurdist fashion, to convince us that aliens from other planets are visiting.

 

[TheBitterOne]

When are people interested in such questions going to stop wringing their handkerchiefs in their fists and glancing sideways and sweating on the question and finally admit to themselves the obvious reality that there are technologically-advanced non-human intelligences manifesting as UFOs?

Yeah, yeah, black ops technology and breakaway civilizations and all that funky human jazz, granted --BORING!

Lets focus on the real potatoes...

My 'gun to the head' test goes like this:

1. You are Robert DeNiro or Christopher Walken (whichever you prefer) and you're being forced to play Russian Roulette by some Alien Greys.

2. Physically press a pretend finger-gun to your temple.

3. Your survival (i.e. you pull the trigger and DON'T blow you brains out) depends on answering the following question correctly:

4. The question is: "Based on the evidence you have familiarised yourself with over the course of your lifetime, are technologically-advanced non-human intelligences manifesting to mankind as a part of the UFO phenomena?"

5. There are no ifs or buts or qualifications here; an immediate, PURELY SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE is required from you now based on your own intuitive sense of the truth of the situation according to the data you have personally analysed to date.

6. Answer 'Yes' or 'No' and then pull the trigger on the finger-gun pressed to your temple.

7. A subtle or overt sense of either surviving or of having blown your own willfully ignorant brains out should ensue.

 

[Burnt State]

Unfortunately I'm more of a Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog kind of guy and to quote, "It is bad when one thing becomes two." The director of said movie offers another analogy that's more in keeping with your perspective, Bitter One, which is, "You can understand the poem without knowing what it's about." For me Ufo's fall squarely into both these spaces. The identity or meaning of the ufo remains both plural and unidentified.

 

[TheBitterOne]

Unfortunately I'm more of a Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog kind of guy and to quote, "It is bad when one thing becomes two." The director of said movie offers another analogy that's more in keeping with your perspective, Bitter One, which is, "You can understand the poem without knowing what it's about." For me Ufo's fall squarely into both these spaces. The identity or meaning of the ufo remains both plural and unidentified.

That's a nice, enigmatic reply, BS, but you're really just hopping around and skirting the issue while I try to make eye contact with you and push the cold revolver into your clammy palm.

 

[Burnt State]

That's a nice, enigmatic reply, BS, but you're really just hopping around and skirting the issue while I try to make eye contact with you and push the cold revolver into your clammy palm.

oh no, we're making eye contact alright. it's just that I pulled out my katana as I don't like guns. and if i've learned anything about ufo's over these many years it's that it is not an either this or that - it is a paradox plain and simple. we could push further into this but the Russian roulette approach just will not work for this problem. the UFO demands to be unclassified and to be something other than. it always poses more questions and rejects all answers. ufology and I could go back and forth on this till eternity and you might help to support that camp in a more clean, cold calculating manner, but i will continue to reject the "aliens from space in their flying saucers" answer because imho it does not fit the bill at all. it just continues to masquerade as such. and that proposition is frankly much more troublesome and unnerving.

 

[Burnt State]

but i will point this out as an addendum TheBitterOne - the approach is freshly cut, so keep slicing.

 

[Badseed]

We're assuming aliens have been around for a long time because of mythology that bears a close resemblance to modern UFO sightings. However maybe its just mythology and the only real alien craft to have visted Earth started appearing in the 1940s.
.

Maybe, but I find it highly unlikely because:

.
that tends to leave us with some rather interesting unambiguous consistencies, mainly that many such sightings involve objects in the sky and that primitive gods associated with them were also believed to have come from the sky.
.

Not to mention these ET's outright claim to be gods in many accounts. A few centuries later you have remarkably similar accounts with beings claiming to be ET's from the moon - when we land a man on the moon, they claim they are from Mars - when we land a probe on Mars they claim to be from a distant star.

... assuming they're even true in the first place, have no doubt been passed down and embellished with the biases of the storytellers.

... Again, I don't think we can safely assume that every abduction claim is an accurate interpretation of the experience ( assuming there even was such an experience )...

...Basically, I don't think that we can say with certainty that every crash claim is legitimate ( if any )...
.

This is an unfortunate reoccurring theme in Ufology. No matter the side, the Ufologist dismisses accounts that conflict with their point of view; even if they are willing to accept much less credible reports as legitimate, so long as they agree with the particular investigators view point of what UFO's are. This may not be you, but - Often I find that ETH guys dismiss the highly strange UFO accounts given by judges, and highly respected members of a community while at the same time they have no problem believing the girl that lives in a trailer park and claims she was impregnated by ETs that look like squid people and took her to the planet Zanadoo to play checkers last week.

They dismiss the strange account because it does not fit the ETH story, so it must be bunk. I say if someone is running a con on you; you should be looking for the inconsistencies. The typical abduction story tells you nothing new, you should be looking for the mistakes the con artist makes - the strange stories.

Some of the same issues above apply, but let's address the question: "Would you do that?". Humans have been abducting wildlife and doing all kinds of terrifying experiments on them for a long time. If we're nothing more to the aliens than just another species, then I can see how we might be of significant interest to them compared to something like - for example - a toad. And as for getting all the data they need and being done with it, it's not uncommon for us to tag wild animals and recapture them at some future time, or do long term studies on various species. Everything changes over time and long term studies supply valuable data on living systems.
.

Even at our stage of technological and social advancement we are hesitant to traumatize animals, even if they are of much lower levels of consciousness. We would not dream of doing it to an animal that has a society, language, culture, transportation, laws, ethics ect....
Especially if the research can be done in a less intrusive or less prolific way. Some studies estimate 2-5% of the humans on earth have been abducted. a civilization that traverses interstellar space is not advanced enough to gather information they need without abducting a hundred thousand people and cutting them open? removing fetuses? they can't grow a fetus in a surrogate or a machine? We can do it, and have not gone to the nearest planet yet in person.

Regardless of origin some things have been made clear; mostly that from our perspective they are malevolent - they lie, steal people, mutilate and manipulate.